|
|
Post by carole on Oct 3, 2011 11:57:27 GMT -5
Mexico city is considering a new type of marriage license that would expire after two years. My understanding from reading the article is that the new type of marriage license is opt in only, no couple is forced to take this new form of marriage license. Of course the religious conservatives are all in an uproar over it. I guess that is understandable given their opinion that couples should stay together for life regardless of how unhappy they may be. Personally I would like to see this become the norm, I wish they had these when I made my big mistake.  www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/30/mexico-two-year-marriage.html?cmp=googleeditorspick |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 3, 2011 12:09:24 GMT -5
I.. uh...
Wow. The possibility of this had never entered my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 3, 2011 12:15:44 GMT -5
I suspect it won't really work because I am biased to believe that the people who would seek out a 2 year license are those who are less likely to jump into marriage without careful consideration and, as a result, would be less likely to divorce in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by carole on Oct 3, 2011 12:29:21 GMT -5
I suspect it won't really work because I am biased to believe that the people who would seek out a 2 year license are those who are less likely to jump into marriage without careful consideration and, as a result, would be less likely to divorce in the first place. My thoughts is that it won't work because nobody is going to say to their fiance "hey lets just get the two year one in case we don't work out". I mean even if it were in the back of your mind you probably wouldn't say it, because if you did there might not be a wedding. And no couple gets married thinking they won't work out. Because if you are thinking that why would you get married? I think it might be more an option for second timers who know the risks than for first timers who believe in the fairy tale and happily ever after. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 3, 2011 12:33:45 GMT -5
I think it might be more an option for second timers who know the risks than for first timers who believe in the fairy tale and happily ever after. Well, then it sounds like there should be a market. So I wouldn’t write it off as a failure yet. |
|
|
|
Post by carole on Oct 3, 2011 12:34:57 GMT -5
I.. uh... Wow. The possibility of this had never entered my mind. I had heard of this before. Back when I was still doing the church thing, our pastor was preaching a sermon on marriage being sacred  and how it is under attack now. He brought up that there were groups that were pushing for a different type of marriage license that couples could opt into that were not be a lifetime commitment. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Oct 3, 2011 14:20:46 GMT -5
Oh, heck, I've had my wife on a renewable yearly contract for 53 years. It tends to keep her alert.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 3, 2011 15:00:46 GMT -5
I had heard of this before. Back when I was still doing the church thing, our pastor was preaching a sermon on marriage being sacred and how it is under attack now. He brought up that there were groups that were pushing for a different type of marriage license that couples could opt into that were not be a lifetime commitment. Yeah, another guy mixing up “sacred marriage” with a government-backed financial contract. *le sigh* |
|
veca
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by veca on Oct 3, 2011 15:27:36 GMT -5
Psssh, nothing new. The Romans had 3 types of marriages. Like one that would last 7 years. They seem to forget that when Paul was writing parts of the NT and marriage, multiple types of marriages like that was the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 3, 2011 16:52:34 GMT -5
I suspect it won't really work because I am biased to believe that the people who would seek out a 2 year license are those who are less likely to jump into marriage without careful consideration and, as a result, would be less likely to divorce in the first place. My thoughts is that it won't work because nobody is going to say to their fiance "hey lets just get the two year one in case we don't work out". I mean even if it were in the back of your mind you probably wouldn't say it, because if you did there might not be a wedding. And no couple gets married thinking they won't work out. Because if you are thinking that why would you get married? I think it might be more an option for second timers who know the risks than for first timers who believe in the fairy tale and happily ever after. How do your first and second paragraphs not contradict each other? |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 4, 2011 1:13:44 GMT -5
I must say this seems pretty silly in my books
The financial assistance of marriage only really helps in very long term scenarios. Having that annulled after 2 years makes no sense as it would be counter to the financial security that marriage is supposed to provide. I could understand say, a 5 year one, but even that seems a bit short in my books.
Personally, I feel if you are not sure about your marriage, don't get married.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 4, 2011 3:30:57 GMT -5
Afaik, temporary marriages are quite common in Iran.
|
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Oct 4, 2011 4:21:56 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong with these temporary marriages, really. Isn't hurting me.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 4, 2011 5:30:41 GMT -5
I don't understand this. Okay, so you go for the two-year marriage license. Then after two years it runs out and you decide not to renew: now what? Wouldn't your marital assets, child custody, etc. be resolved just like a divorce? What's the difference between this and getting a regular marriage license and divorcing after two years?
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 4, 2011 9:20:03 GMT -5
I must say this seems pretty silly in my books The financial assistance of marriage only really helps in very long term scenarios. Having that annulled after 2 years makes no sense as it would be counter to the financial security that marriage is supposed to provide. I could understand say, a 5 year one, but even that seems a bit short in my books. It is more about giving folks an out if it turns out they can’t handle the responsibilities that go with marriage, than it is about getting the benefits for just two years. If it turns out that the folks with the temporary license can handle the marriage and want the benefits thereof, then they go and extend it to the usual indefinite contract. What's the difference between this and getting a regular marriage license and divorcing after two years? Less paperwork. No need to pay a divorce attorney. |
|
and how it is under attack now. He brought up that there were groups that were pushing for a different type of marriage license that couples could opt into that were not be a lifetime commitment.
